The future of the AA filter

Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.

Advertisements

RichA <> wrote:
>Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
>have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
>supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
>odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
>with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
>moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.

My Kodak DCS Pro 14n didn't have one either. That was made in 2004.

Think of the billions of mushy images that have been made in the last
eight years using DSLRs with AA filters with fine detail smeared
beyond recognition. All because of an irrational fear of aliasing and
moire. It is a monumental waste of talent and of good equipment that
has been unnecessarily degraded.

Our pre-orders for the Nikon D800/800E are split about 60/40 with the
greater number choosing the version *with* the AA filter. You can
lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. ;-)

Advertisements

On Feb 7, 10:49 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Bruce <> wrote:
> >RichA <> wrote:
>
> >>Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
> >>have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
> >>supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
> >>odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
> >>with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
> >>moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.
>
> >My Kodak DCS Pro 14n didn't have one either. That was made in 2004.
>
> >Think of the billions of mushy images that have been made in the last
> >eight years using DSLRs with AA filters with fine detail smeared
> >beyond recognition. All because of an irrational fear of aliasing and
> >moire. It is a monumental waste of talent and of good equipment that
> >has been unnecessarily degraded.
>
> >Our pre-orders for the Nikon D800/800E are split about 60/40 with the
> >greater number choosing the version *with* the AA filter. You can
> >lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. ;-)
>
> You have an astonishing lack of technical acumen.
>

The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
an old D100 I converted for IR work.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:
> >Nikon is offering a model D800E without it, the new pro Fuji doesn't
> >have one, the Leica M9 (I think) doesn't have one and Olympus
> >supposedly is using a very weak one on the new OM-D. The Fuji is the
> >odd man out here owing to its sensor configuration. If they come out
> >with a revolutionary new sensor design, maybe the AA thing will be
> >moot, but it's interesting see it's dominance waning a bit now.
>
> My Kodak DCS Pro 14n didn't have one either. That was made in 2004.

and its users complained about the 'italian flag syndrome,' aka,
aliasing artifacts.
> Think of the billions of mushy images that have been made in the last
> eight years using DSLRs with AA filters with fine detail smeared
> beyond recognition. All because of an irrational fear of aliasing and
> moire. It is a monumental waste of talent and of good equipment that
> has been unnecessarily degraded.

nonsense. there are not billions of such images.
> Our pre-orders for the Nikon D800/800E are split about 60/40 with the
> greater number choosing the version *with* the AA filter. You can
> lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. ;-)

how ironic. you've been led to the facts about aliasing and sampling
theory, but yet you still refuse to believe any of it, clinging to this
idiotic notion of antialiasing filters causing mush.

if you're getting mush, you are doing something wrong or your camera is
defective. it's not due to an aa filter.

In article
<>,
RichA <> wrote:
> The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
> today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
> an old D100 I converted for IR work.

what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
sharpness improvements.

In article <>, Rich
<> wrote:
> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?

bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).

On Feb 8, 10:17 am, nospam <> wrote:
> In article
> <>,
>
> RichA <> wrote:
> > The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
> > today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> > improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
> > an old D100 I converted for IR work.
>
> what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
> sharpness improvements.

So you are willing to state that no additionally resolved detail would
be visible?

On Feb 8, 10:17 am, nospam <> wrote:
> In article <>, Rich
>
> <> wrote:
> > Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
>
> bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
> at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
> isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).

Even if it is the case that no additional detail was gained, the mere
ability to be able to increase sharpness without inducing edge
artifacting that you see on normal AA filtered images when too much
sharpness is applied is a good enough reason to switch to an AA-less
camera. I agree, sharpness increases do not always = detail
increases, but clean sharpness increases are always desirable,
especially if you are making larger prints, or cropping.

In article
<>,
RichA <> wrote:
> > > Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
> >
> > bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
> > at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
> > isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).
>
> Even if it is the case that no additional detail was gained, the mere
> ability to be able to increase sharpness without inducing edge
> artifacting that you see on normal AA filtered images when too much
> sharpness is applied is a good enough reason to switch to an AA-less
> camera.

no it isn't and you can add the sharpness in the processing. like i
said, you don't understand what it is you're looking at.
> I agree, sharpness increases do not always = detail
> increases, but clean sharpness increases are always desirable,
> especially if you are making larger prints, or cropping.
>
> http://maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

they're selling something, so obviously they're going to try to paint a
rosy picture. the funny thing is they even say it's worse:

Notice that the HR models clearly shows some banding and color moiré
problems.

In article
<>,
RichA <> wrote:
> > > The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
> > > today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> > > improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
> > > an old D100 I converted for IR work.
> >
> > what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
> > sharpness improvements.
>
> So you are willing to state that no additionally resolved detail would
> be visible?

no details that were not originally in the subject.

what you get are artifacts, or false detail, which occasionally might
look ok, but most of the time it will be a problem.

RichA <> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 10:17 am, nospam <> wrote:
>> In article
>> <>,
>>
>> RichA <> wrote:
>> > The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
>> > today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
>> > improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
>> > an old D100 I converted for IR work.
>>
>> what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
>> sharpness improvements.
>
>So you are willing to state that no additionally resolved detail would
>be visible?

I think it is self-evident that he is willing to talk nonsense.

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who
pontificate at length about aliasing and moire have zero or near-zero
experience of using DSLRs that don't have AA filters.

Their arguments are simply theoretical and not based on practical
considerations.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:
> >> > The proof is in the pudding. Converted D200s with a modest (by
> >> > today's standards) megapixel count show definite sharpness and detail
> >> > improvements. There are sites that show this. I even noticed it on
> >> > an old D100 I converted for IR work.
> >>
> >> what you noticed were aliasing artifacts and false detail, not
> >> sharpness improvements.
> >
> >So you are willing to state that no additionally resolved detail would
> >be visible?
>
> I think it is self-evident that he is willing to talk nonsense.

you misspelled 'facts'.
> I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who
> pontificate at length about aliasing and moire have zero or near-zero
> experience of using DSLRs that don't have AA filters.
>
> Their arguments are simply theoretical and not based on practical
> considerations.

practical considerations are that kodak users constantly produce images
with aliasing and then complain about the italian flag syndrome. you're
the only one who claims it doesn't happen.

In article <>, Rich
<> wrote:
> If the images are on the up and up, there is definitely extra detail
> visible in the HR shots and yes, there is moire in some of them, but the
> ones that don't have it are better than the non-modified camera shot. It
> should be possible to take care of the moire in post-processing which
> means that with the HR camera, you end up with a superior result.

On Feb 8, 10:46 pm, nospam <> wrote:
> In article <>, Rich
>
> <> wrote:
> > If the images are on the up and up, there is definitely extra detail
> > visible in the HR shots and yes, there is moire in some of them, but the
> > ones that don't have it are better than the non-modified camera shot. It
> > should be possible to take care of the moire in post-processing which
> > means that with the HR camera, you end up with a superior result.
>
> you *can't* fix moire in post processing without compromising real
> details.

Then ignore it in the shots that have it. The shots that don't will
be superior anyway.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:17:26 -0500, nospam <>
wrote:
>In article <>, Rich
><> wrote:
>
>> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
>
>bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
>at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
>isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).

Nope. You will only get artifacts when the spatial frequency of what
you're sampling is greater than 1/2 the spatial resolution of your
sensor, given that your lens can also resolve to that level of detail.
It takes a lot more than a solid wall to do that and it doesn't happen
very often in real photos. Of course you can find examples when you're
looking for it. But you have to look through a lot of shots to find
those few examples.

It's simple sampling theory that a lot of poeple just don't seem to
understand.

In article <>, TheRealSteve
<> wrote:
> >> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
> >
> >bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
> >at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
> >isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).
>
> Nope. You will only get artifacts when the spatial frequency of what
> you're sampling is greater than 1/2 the spatial resolution of your
> sensor, given that your lens can also resolve to that level of detail.
> It takes a lot more than a solid wall to do that and it doesn't happen
> very often in real photos. Of course you can find examples when you're
> looking for it. But you have to look through a lot of shots to find
> those few examples.
>
> It's simple sampling theory that a lot of poeple just don't seem to
> understand.

apparently, simple english is what a lot of people just don't seem to
understand. read what i wrote again. what i said was a simplified
version of what you said.

TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:17:26 -0500, nospam <>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <>, Rich
>><> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
>>
>>bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
>>at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
>>isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).
>
>Nope. You will only get artifacts when the spatial frequency of what
>you're sampling is greater than 1/2 the spatial resolution of your
>sensor, given that your lens can also resolve to that level of detail.
>It takes a lot more than a solid wall to do that and it doesn't happen
>very often in real photos. Of course you can find examples when you're
>looking for it. But you have to look through a lot of shots to find
>those few examples.
>
>It's simple sampling theory that a lot of poeple just don't seem to
>understand.

Well said, sir!

The apparent paranoia about aliasing and moire is misplaced. Because
of that paranoia - about a problem that will only be evident in a very
small percentage of shots - EVERY shot taken by the majority of DSLR
users has fine detail turned to mush by unnecessary AA filters.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:
> >>> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
> >>
> >>bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
> >>at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
> >>isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).
> >
> >Nope. You will only get artifacts when the spatial frequency of what
> >you're sampling is greater than 1/2 the spatial resolution of your
> >sensor, given that your lens can also resolve to that level of detail.
> >It takes a lot more than a solid wall to do that and it doesn't happen
> >very often in real photos. Of course you can find examples when you're
> >looking for it. But you have to look through a lot of shots to find
> >those few examples.
> >
> >It's simple sampling theory that a lot of poeple just don't seem to
> >understand.
>
> Well said, sir!

hilarious. you clearly have no clue about sampling theory and you can't
read english any better than he did.
> The apparent paranoia about aliasing and moire is misplaced. Because
> of that paranoia - about a problem that will only be evident in a very
> small percentage of shots - EVERY shot taken by the majority of DSLR
> users has fine detail turned to mush by unnecessary AA filters.

nonsense. aa filters are a necessary evil and they don't turn fine
detail to mush.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:33:18 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>TheRealSteve <> wrote:
>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:17:26 -0500, nospam <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <>, Rich
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you honestly want to see that comparison?
>>>
>>>bring it on. you obviously don't understand what it is you're looking
>>>at. if you remove the aa filter, you *will* get artifacts unless there
>>>isn't much detail to begin with (e.g., a solid colour wall).
>>
>>Nope. You will only get artifacts when the spatial frequency of what
>>you're sampling is greater than 1/2 the spatial resolution of your
>>sensor, given that your lens can also resolve to that level of detail.
>
>Whoa. Lets stop right there. You have said virtually
>the same thing he said. He isn't wrong. I am not
>getting the idea that you have a perspective on what it
>means that allows understanding the significance of what
>he said (or what you've written either).
>
>>It takes a lot more than a solid wall to do that and it doesn't happen
>>very often in real photos. Of course you can find examples when you're
>>looking for it. But you have to look through a lot of shots to find
>>those few examples.
>
>It happens in *most* real photos. That is because such
>detail exists in real life objects.
>
>What you have to look hard to find is *not* where
>aliasing has happened, but where the aliasing produces
>something you can visually identify as aliasing. Hence
>if the fine detail is the result of multiple parallel
>lines, or even worse if there are two sets of parallel
>lines that have different offsets, the result in the
>image will be moiré, which can easily be identified.
>
>But if the fine detail is anything else, it is virtually
>impossible to identify the resulting detail as the
>result of aliasing unless you have a second image that
>is exactly the same and does not contain the aliased
>detail. Then it is very obvious too.

What you think of as "aliased detail" in most cases is real detail
that's missing from the image that had the aa filter. The detail that
exists in real objects is exactly what the aa filter removes. But you
will get absolutely zero aliasing anywhere in an image where the
detail has not exceeded the nyquist frequency. With today's sensors
that have several times the spatial resolution of sensors of only a
few years ago, there's much less real life detail that exceeds the
sensor's nyquist frequency. Of course it can happen, but much more
rarely.

Couple that with lenses that cannot resolve to level of detail that
the sensor can, the lens itself is acting as an anti-alias filter. No
need to mush it up further with another filter.
>>It's simple sampling theory that a lot of poeple just don't seem to
>>understand.
>
>Do you?

Yes, I do.
>If you think visible moiré is the only artifact produced
>by aliasing, or that other aliasing artifacts are not
>detrimental to the quality of an image, then perhaps you
>don't yet really understand sampling theory.

Yes, moire' is the only artifact produced by undersampling. But the
moire is most visible with large areas of the same spatial frequency
that is higher than nyquist, such as parallel lines of a brick wall or
fabric texture. Here, the low frequency moire artifact is constant and
creates a "beat" that is constant and visible across a large portion
of the repeating pattern.

In other areas of spatial frequency greater than nyquist that do not
have the same constant spatial frequency, such as a field of grass,
the low frequency artifacts and the resultant moire' are too random to
be easily picked out by your eye as something different than the
randomness of the original field of grass. The moire' patterns
produced are too localized to a small area to be noticed unless you
pixel peep. Over the larger area it's too random to be noticed as a
moire', but it is moire' nonetheless.

The main point is that with today's high resolution sensors coupled
with lens resolution increases that have not kept up with sensor
resolution increases, aliasing is much less of a problem than it used
to be. A body with the aa filter removed is a useful tool in the
hands of a photographer mindful of it's limitations.

In article <>, TheRealSteve
<> wrote:
> What you think of as "aliased detail" in most cases is real detail
> that's missing from the image that had the aa filter. The detail that
> exists in real objects is exactly what the aa filter removes.

wrong. what the aa filter removes is detail the can't be resolved by
the sensor because it's too high. if the aa filter wasn't there, that
detail would alias. with the aa filter, there wont be any aliasing.

that's a bit simplistic, but it makes the point. real world aa filters
aren't perfect so there's a bit of a tradeoff as to how strong it needs
to be.
> But you
> will get absolutely zero aliasing anywhere in an image where the
> detail has not exceeded the nyquist frequency.

actually, aliasing starts to become a problem a little below nyquist.
> With today's sensors
> that have several times the spatial resolution of sensors of only a
> few years ago, there's much less real life detail that exceeds the
> sensor's nyquist frequency. Of course it can happen, but much more
> rarely.

several??? more like double. a 24 mp sensor, such as the nikon d3x, has
double the linear resolution than that of a 6mp sensor, such as the
nikon d70.
> Couple that with lenses that cannot resolve to level of detail that
> the sensor can, the lens itself is acting as an anti-alias filter. No
> need to mush it up further with another filter.

maybe *your* lenses don't resolve that well. you obviously need new
lenses, ones which can resolve what the sensor can resolve. and a book
on signal theory.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!